A mountain of scorn over fountain

Published: Sunday, September 22, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, September 20, 2013 at 5:27 p.m.

The problem with publicly funded art (or its beauty if you love public debate) is that everyone is an art critic. When the art doesn’t turn out like people expect, everyone has an opinion to share. Yet we can’t in recent memory recall any public art project that has spurred more scorn than the “Mountain Memories” fountain sculpture erected over the summer at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Main Street.

Sure, there was that out-of-town architect’s plans a few years ago for an ultra-modern art center at the site of old Grey Hosiery Mill. People hated it, and they said so. But it was really that project’s estimated $35 million price tag that doomed it.

In the case of Mountain Memories, the project has already been built and landed with a colossal thud downtown. It does not help that city leaders allowed the project’s cost to balloon from the artist’s estimate of $121,000 to the final price tag of $183,284. However, given the attacks residents have lobbed at the fountain in letters to the editor and online comments, we suspect the sculpture would be a target even if it had not cost the city a dime.

As of Friday morning, 79 people had commented on staff writer Emily Weaver’s Wednesday article on the fountain. None of them defended the sculpture, many were venomous in their critiques, and several justifiably questioned how city leaders allowed the price to get so high.

“The ugliness of this thing is only outdone by the outrageous price tag!” commented Mark Harris. “The City Council and mayor should be ashamed of spending taxpayer money in such a wasteful way. Hope the voters remember this at election time and clean house.”

Along the lines of “Remember the Alamo,” “Remember the fountain” is fast replacing “Remember the water system development charge” as a rallying cry among the disgruntled electorate. Torches and pitchforks may be next, unless, as one online commentator wished, “maybey (sic) a drunk driver will plow into it and they will have to tear it down.”

Many of our amateur art critics have compared the sculpture to a tooth or teeth, prompting calls for extraction. Peter Hobson of Hendersonville asked, “How much a year do we still have to pay for X-rays and cleanings?” Scott Donaldson, a local urologist, claimed in a letter to the editor that “our dentists find the ‘Mountain Fountain’ epic in its beauty.”

Leading the charge to repeal and replace the fountain is local clay artist Barbara Glassman. In a letter to the editor last month, she and her husband Stuart Glassman said the sculpture must go. “It is demoralizing and counterproductive to have something represent our town that is a source of ridicule and embarrassment,” they wrote.

Glassman has proposed “repurposing” the sculpture by moving its copper top to the southern entrance to town, removing the fountain’s stones and bricks from the current location and organizing a local group to raise money for “a true fountain” with a lot more flowing water. More than a third of fountain’s total cost — $66,275 — is for water infrastructure already installed at the site, including a pump, filtration and sanitation system.

In her Wednesday article, Weaver spelled out how the cost of the fountain grew to more than $183,000. She explained how the city originally earmarked $143,000 for two gateway art projects, but only one (the fountain) came to fruition, and its price tag did not include specific costs for the piece or the mechanics to operate it.

Regardless of anyone’s artistic tastes or opinions, this seems to be one hard-learned lesson for City Council and staff from the fountain fiasco. The city should not embark on a mechanically dependent piece of artwork without firm, upfront numbers for how much it will cost to build and operate.

Art is subjective. It cannot be created by committee or even by community consensus. Perhaps in time we will grow to love Mountain Memories, although that seems unlikely. Given the community’s overwhelmingly negative response, city leaders should reconsider the project, solicit public input and consider all constructive suggestions to salvage the tax dollars that have already been spent.

<p>The problem with publicly funded art (or its beauty if you love public debate) is that everyone is an art critic. When the art doesn't turn out like people expect, everyone has an opinion to share. Yet we can't in recent memory recall any public art project that has spurred more scorn than the “Mountain Memories” fountain sculpture erected over the summer at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Main Street.</p><p>Sure, there was that out-of-town architect's plans a few years ago for an ultra-modern art center at the site of old Grey Hosiery Mill. People hated it, and they said so. But it was really that project's estimated $35 million price tag that doomed it.</p><p>In the case of Mountain Memories, the project has already been built and landed with a colossal thud downtown. It does not help that city leaders allowed the project's cost to balloon from the artist's estimate of $121,000 to the final price tag of $183,284. However, given the attacks residents have lobbed at the fountain in letters to the editor and online comments, we suspect the sculpture would be a target even if it had not cost the city a dime.</p><p>As of Friday morning, 79 people had commented on staff writer Emily Weaver's Wednesday article on the fountain. None of them defended the sculpture, many were venomous in their critiques, and several justifiably questioned how city leaders allowed the price to get so high.</p><p>“The ugliness of this thing is only outdone by the outrageous price tag!” commented Mark Harris. “The City Council and mayor should be ashamed of spending taxpayer money in such a wasteful way. Hope the voters remember this at election time and clean house.”</p><p>Along the lines of “Remember the Alamo,” “Remember the fountain” is fast replacing “Remember the water system development charge” as a rallying cry among the disgruntled electorate. Torches and pitchforks may be next, unless, as one online commentator wished, “maybey (sic) a drunk driver will plow into it and they will have to tear it down.”</p><p>Many of our amateur art critics have compared the sculpture to a tooth or teeth, prompting calls for extraction. Peter Hobson of Hendersonville asked, “How much a year do we still have to pay for X-rays and cleanings?” Scott Donaldson, a local urologist, claimed in a letter to the editor that “our dentists find the 'Mountain Fountain' epic in its beauty.”</p><p>Leading the charge to repeal and replace the fountain is local clay artist Barbara Glassman. In a letter to the editor last month, she and her husband Stuart Glassman said the sculpture must go. “It is demoralizing and counterproductive to have something represent our town that is a source of ridicule and embarrassment,” they wrote.</p><p>Glassman has proposed “repurposing” the sculpture by moving its copper top to the southern entrance to town, removing the fountain's stones and bricks from the current location and organizing a local group to raise money for “a true fountain” with a lot more flowing water. More than a third of fountain's total cost — $66,275 — is for water infrastructure already installed at the site, including a pump, filtration and sanitation system.</p><p>In her Wednesday article, Weaver spelled out how the cost of the fountain grew to more than $183,000. She explained how the city originally earmarked $143,000 for two gateway art projects, but only one (the fountain) came to fruition, and its price tag did not include specific costs for the piece or the mechanics to operate it.</p><p>Regardless of anyone's artistic tastes or opinions, this seems to be one hard-learned lesson for City Council and staff from the fountain fiasco. The city should not embark on a mechanically dependent piece of artwork without firm, upfront numbers for how much it will cost to build and operate.</p><p>Art is subjective. It cannot be created by committee or even by community consensus. Perhaps in time we will grow to love Mountain Memories, although that seems unlikely. Given the community's overwhelmingly negative response, city leaders should reconsider the project, solicit public input and consider all constructive suggestions to salvage the tax dollars that have already been spent.</p>